Arma 3 Creator DLC: Global Mobilization - Cold War Germany

[mondkalb 1087]

No terrain changes are planned.

Both the Do 28 D-2 and L-410 UVP are STOL capable aircraft and can take off using 500m of any cleared surface. The roads and fields are perfectly suitable for this. Where there are power poles on the side, you can either clear them in the editor using the "Hide Object" module or give players a task to clear them away with the right engineering equipment (either flatten them with a truck/tank or apply explosive charges.) The highway is wide enough to comfortably accommodate either aircraft.

So far I have not had troubles landing these birds in the countryside and taking off again. That was exactly their design purpose and why they are still today popular with emergency relief organizations.

Regarding the terrain:
We did indeed choose to keep the terrain as historically accurate as possible. Two reasons led us to make this decision:

- The Inner German Border has never been accurately depicted in any game before.

- We do not miss airports/runways, since the aircraft that would require them are - in our opinion - misplaced in Arma, since the game does not provide the necessary scale to give them meaningful purpose.

 

The nearest West German jets that would reach Weferlingen at that time were F-104G. These were stationed just 8 minutes travel time away in the West. At Mach 2 (which they were capable of) it would take them 29.85 seconds to cross the map entirely from west to east. The trusty old prop planes here zoom along at about 300km/h. 🙂

Regarding other military installations:
Mariental-Horst was in fact an Airfield, but only in WW2 and afterwards disbanded early on. The remaining military structures there were then converted into public housing.

There is a small installation south of Volkmarsdorf that was occupied by the mobile early warning system of the Luftwaffe, and a listening post at Bahrdorf that was at the time operated by the French.

Further, the Bundeswehr was prohibited from approaching the border any closer than 5km. (Some sources claim 3km, but my source who served with the West German Bundesgrenzschutz said it was 5km). The closest combat unit to that area was stationed in Braunschweig at the time, some 30 kilometres West of Weferlingen.

 

I hope this provides some context and insight into the route and decisions we took.

[Rovka 14]

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

All those Aircraft are STOL Capable, you cn rty that out right now with the Caesar Airplane...there are plenty of places to take off and land right now in est and west...basically any flat field. Both have wingspans below 15m. This off-strip operations did work very well with the AN-2 in ArmA II. You could perform almost helicopter like insertions. So there is no reason why it should not work right now in ArmA III.

Hi, thanks for the answer given. I forgot about the An-2 and its capabilities there.

But I thought unless wartime-laws were put into effect, that it wasn't excactly allowed for to land on just about any field available, since it was civilian property?
Also, how did these STOL aircraft manage to operate when prolonged rainfall would drench the fields normally used to land and take-off from? Wouldn't the wheels sink into the ground, or anything?
I know an aircraft is fairly light of weight by itself, but coming in at low speed fully laden with men or cargo.. It's just that I have a hard time to understand how it all would work under those heavy conditions weather-wise.

As for the civilian-housing capable to lodge military units in them.. I thought such practises was against the laws of war?
Like to house military on regular or permanent basis in civilian homes? I just wonder if them West Germans were housed in or outside towns, by what was permissable or not?

@mondkalb Thanks for the indepth answer given there. 🙂

Edited April 30, 2020 by Rovka
Additional thanks given where due.

[Damian90 696]

@mondkalb

A question, or two.

1. Can we expect some new ground (armored) vehicles in next update?

 

2. Can we expect new MBT's, like a Leopard 2A1/A2/A3/A4? And perhaps a T-72M/T-72M1?

 

[mondkalb 1087]

Heya,

we cannot make any statements about future content beyond what is agreed as releasable between us and BI. Otherwise It runs the risk of being taken out of context and carried as "they confirmed XYZ", when in fact that was never the case.
The tanks you mention however do exist on our own internal wishlist, meaning that we are interested. 🙂

[Beagle 684]

13 hours ago, mondkalb said:

Heya,

we cannot make any statements about future content beyond what is agreed as releasable between us and BI. Otherwise It runs the risk of being taken out of context and carried as "they confirmed XYZ", when in fact that was never the case.
The tanks you mention however do exist on our own internal wishlist, meaning that we are interested. 🙂

And the Luchs of course, Horrido!

[Damian90 696]

18 hours ago, mondkalb said:

Heya,

we cannot make any statements about future content beyond what is agreed as releasable between us and BI. Otherwise It runs the risk of being taken out of context and carried as "they confirmed XYZ", when in fact that was never the case.
The tanks you mention however do exist on our own internal wishlist, meaning that we are interested. 🙂

Understood, thanks for answer. 🙂

[Michael.1 0]

I would love to see Germany 90s. i like your work and my Family name is in the Campaign and i love that Ehrlich. I look forward to the new staff.

[Beagle 684]

52 minutes ago, Michael.1 said:

I would love to see Germany 90s. i like your work and my Family name is in the Campaign and i love that Ehrlich. I look forward to the new staff.

to be honest, 1983 and 1993 did not look much different in die Bundeswehr. The real change did not come before KFOR in 1999. Even the modern Flecktarn Uniforms and Protective Gear like Vests and Kevlar Helmet was not fully introduced before 1997. I served with the Panzeraufklärer in a KRK support Batalion  from 1993-1995, and we never saw all the "advanced" stuff that was in the making at that time. WE had posters for the Leopard II A5 and the proposed but never build new Scout vehicle Zobel. None of them showed up. The Zobel became the Fenek, and the Leopard II A5 became the Leopard II A6, but at that time all heavy Panzerauflärungszüge were decommisioned. The only out of area Assignement of that times was UNOSOM II, and that was a luckily rather short one, since tropical gear was not provided because it did not exist.

[VT1032 1]

Not sure if this is the right place for this or if it's already been addressed before but I'm having an issue with the Leopards.  For some reason they all spawn with no ammo for the coaxial mg3.  Any idea why this is happening or how to fix it, or if it's happening to anyone else?  

[mondkalb 1087]

Heya, can you check if you're running any mods, and if so, have a try without any other additional mods. It might be that they somehow interfere with the basic configuration of the weapons/magazines in GM.

[VT1032 1]

10 hours ago, mondkalb said:

Heya, can you check if you're running any mods, and if so, have a try without any other additional mods. It might be that they somehow interfere with the basic configuration of the weapons/magazines in GM.

 

Yeah, I had that thought as I was posting above.  Works fine with no mods, which is good for you and bad for me, lol...  Now to figure out which of the hundreds I was running is the problem child... 

 

On a side note, I'm sure you get bombarded with content requests, but have you ever thought about adding a Marder?  I completely understand if the answer is that you've already got enough on the plate, but it just seems like it would be such a natural fit, considering it was one of the most common West German vehicles of that era and a huge part of the panzergrenadier formations.  

[VT1032 1]

Actually, that was pretty easy.  Very first thing I added back in appears to be the problem.  Also, it affected all coaxial mg's throughout the mod, not just the Leopard.  This is what appears to be causing the issue:

 

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1745398079

[mondkalb 1087]

Glad you could sort it.

About the Marder, it's an iconic vehicle that exists on our ToDo list with rather high priority. 🙂

[Damian90 696]

@mondkalb

 

I do not know how usefull this might be for you guys. But here are declassified British documents from Leopard 2 armor tests. Just to explain it a bit. The mentioned "LEO 2 (in-service)" is a Leopard 2A1/A2/A3/A4 with so called B tech armor package (so called A tech armor package was used only in prototype Leopard 2AV), these tanks were made from 1979 up to second half of 1980's. The so called "LEO 2 (Improved as proposed)" are later production batches of Leopard 2A4 from the second half of 1980's that used so called C tech armor package. The last ever made 75 Leopard 2A4's used so called D tech armor package, but these tanks were made in 1991 as the last batch 8 so they seems to be beyond the scope of the DLC. It also appears that all NATO tanks with special armor in 1980's period, had more or less equal protection levels over the hull and turret front.

 

[mondkalb 1087]

The Global Mobilization 1.2 Update is now available!

Quote

GM 1.2 brings 6 new vehicles (25 variants), 4 weapons, Spec Ops, Parachutes:

VBH 1 (A1, Swooper),
PAH 1 (A1)
CH-53G (GS)
Mi-2P (T, R, SR, US, URS, URN, URP, URP-G, Ch, Platan)

L-410T (S, Salon)
Do 28 D2 (Medevac)

SpPz 2A1 (2A2)

FIM-43
Strela-2
PM-63
SG5A2 (A3, SD2, SD3)

Find more details here. Check the full changelog.

[Kreu 16]

Hello

i got a small question. Today i wanted to use some GM weapons in a mostly vanilla scenario and realised they where outperforming the vanilla weapons quite a bit.
In the Arsenal i noticed that especially the G3 has an insane damage output and outperforms all other guns. Is that intentional?

[GalComT 509]

GM has multiple 7.62 rounds implemented not just a single one, all of these rounds are performing the way they are supposed to perform in reality, and able to penetrate the amount of steel/concrete they are supposed to penetrate in Arma. Arma3s 7.62 ammo has been massively nerfed and does not behave the way it is supposed to behave. In arma itself, this doesn't matter all that much as it is not the primary ammunition used by the majority of the weapons. In GM we need to make sure that the 7.62 rounds we have perform as close to reality as possible as it is the primary ammunition for the Western weapons used in the DLC.

(if you get hit in the head by a 7.62 round, helmet or not you do not just walk away from that)

[kuro 0]

Hello, many, many thanks this DLC, it is so great i can not express my feelings in Words.

a) How to open the rear ramp on the CH-53 by script? Found it 🙂:  myheli animatedoor ["cargoramp_source",1]   

 

b) Where to put and find Missions for this DLC? I created Singleplayer and COOP 2 missions (without Addons,  just GM) and also looking for such missions. As the TAG system in Steam is broken (or i am just to stupid to get it working) it would be nice to find a place for these missions.

Thanks

[Ex3B 265]

Disclaimer: I do not have this DLC, but I am thinking of getting it during this steam sale.

On 4/30/2020 at 4:25 PM, mondkalb said:

Both the Do 28 D-2 and L-410 UVP are STOL capable aircraft and can take off using 500m of any cleared surface. The roads and fields are perfectly suitable for this. Where there are power poles on the side, you can either clear them in the editor using the "Hide Object" module or give players a task to clear them away with the right engineering equipment (either flatten them with a truck/tank or apply explosive charges.) The highway is wide enough to comfortably accommodate either aircraft.So far I have not had troubles landing these birds in the countryside and taking off again. That was exactly their design purpose and why they are still today popular with emergency relief organizations.

While I understand and accept your reasoning, couldn't you configure some of the highways/roads/fields to be "airports" as far as the AI is concerned...

Alternately, add a placeable dynamic airport object, so that at least the AI can land somewhat competently

I know its not so hard to make a placeable dynamic airport object with some simple .cfg file editing (there's a hidden one already for the vanilla static aircraft carrier, all that is needed is to change one line so that airplanes without tailhooks recognize it, and then change the scope setting to allow it to be placed).

Quote

- We do not miss airports/runways, since the aircraft that would require them are - in our opinion - misplaced in Arma, since the game does not provide the necessary scale to give them meaningful purpose.

 

The nearest West German jets that would reach Weferlingen at that time were F-104G. These were stationed just 8 minutes travel time away in the West. At Mach 2 (which they were capable of) it would take them 29.85 seconds to cross the map entirely from west to east. The trusty old prop planes here zoom along at about 300km/h. 🙂

...

Further, the Bundeswehr was prohibited from approaching the border any closer than 5km. (Some sources claim 3km, but my source who served with the West German Bundesgrenzschutz said it was 5km).

Fitting Jets into Arma has always been less than ideal, so I understand the point. I also feel that island terrains are better suited for jets. At least with Altis + offshore carriers, you can have distances of 60km between carriers. The scale is problematic, Jets weapon ranges are almost 10x lower than they should be for weapons like the AMRAAM, while jet top speeds are around 1/2 what they should be (like around mach 1, instead of mach 2).

That said, they are a lot of fun, and act reasonably well when acting as CAS during combat (ignoring that if you call in CAS, it is there almost immediately, and isn't coming from some base 100+km away).

 

Lastly: Just curious about the 5km/3 km claims: any chance that there was a mix-up in units, 5km is about 3 miles, so if it was 5km, and it was reported as 3 miles for Americans, then I can easily see the units getting mixed up and becoming a claim of 3km...

 

On 6/24/2020 at 3:12 PM, GalComT said:

GM has multiple 7.62 rounds implemented not just a single one, all of these rounds are performing the way they are supposed to perform in reality, and able to penetrate the amount of steel/concrete they are supposed to penetrate in Arma. Arma3s 7.62 ammo has been massively nerfed and does not behave the way it is supposed to behave. In arma itself, this doesn't matter all that much as it is not the primary ammunition used by the majority of the weapons. In GM we need to make sure that the 7.62 rounds we have perform as close to reality as possible as it is the primary ammunition for the Western weapons used in the DLC.

(if you get hit in the head by a 7.62 round, helmet or not you do not just walk away from that)

 

On 6/24/2020 at 10:59 AM, Kreu said:

Today i wanted to use some GM weapons in a mostly vanilla scenario and realised they where outperforming the vanilla weapons quite a bit.
In the Arsenal i noticed that especially the G3 has an insane damage output and outperforms all other guns. Is that intentional?

 

One of the things I want to do, is to mix and match GM assets with vanilla assets, such as sending in Kumas/slammers against some rustbucket T-55s (like in Arma 2, but even moreso with the M1A2 TUSKs against T-34-85s). I can forgive some small arms differences (Arma 3 has enough of a variety of small arms for my purposes), but how do the armored vehicles compare?

How does the damage and penetration of the 100mm gun of a T-55 and the 105mm gun of a leopard compare to the vanilla 105mm cannon?

Will a T-55 be one-shotting Angaras/Varsuk/Kumas/Slammers? Will an AMV-7 marshall's 40mm gun firing APFSDS be able to take on a T-55? what about a Leopard 1 (it should)?

If the GM assets are more or less appropriately balanced with Vanilla+BI DLC assets, I think I'll get it during this sale.

 

Back to the small arms: how does the penetration of the GM 7.62x51 compare to larger BI weapons, like the MAR-10/Cyrus/M320/GM6?

What is the ballistic coefficient of the ammo?

 

[the_one_and_only_Venator 162]

1 hour ago, Ex3B said:

Back to the small arms

All I can tell is that the GM 556 is more powerful than vanilla 556. So I can only assume the same issue goes at least for all small arms.

[mondkalb 1087]

Heya,

A dynamic AI Airport Object is included in 1.2 exactly as you described. So that should provide the capability to create airports for AI anywhere.
About the 5km -> 3mi, this makes a lot of sense is likely the origin of the confusion. That's a really plausible connection!
The overall weapon values are following the same reasoning of using their correct penetration powers.

Putting a T-55 up against the Slammer is going to be a very uneven match, no doubt. For context: The design of the Leopard 1 was influenced by the expectation that AT weapons and missiles would continue to become so powerful that further uparmoring tanks is not feasible (ATGMs with penetration powers approaching 1000mm with HOT and TOW missiles). As a result the Leo 1 is a tank that traded armor away to gain speed and agility. It can easily reach 70km/h in cross country drive in Arma 3, same as a T-100.
Additioanlly GM includes old period-appropriate ammo as well and modern rounds for the 105mm, so with a Leopard 1A5 (roughly from the 1990s) you can definitely deal serious damage and be effective against the modern assets in CSAT.
Also keep in mind that the Vanilla assets are not necessarily geared towards realism, but rather towards gameplay and fair matchups. GM assets seek to recreate the vehicle simulation as closely as possible.

About the various weapon values and their behaviour, you can check them even out before a purchase!
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1776428269

This allows you to check out the content in the editor with the standard DLC restrictions that mostly only allow passive use. So you can use this to do some target practice and to examine the assets through the config browser, too.

[Laid3acK 74]

Hello GM team and congrats for this nice update.

Always about the 7,62 round (sorry), i noticed that the typicalSpeed is 200 m/s for all 7,62x51 bullets, except the "gm_bullet_762x51mm_base" 800 m/s (same that the mag's initSpeed).

 

If i understand correctly the typicalSpeed definition and according with the MEN DM41 ballistic (Strelok Pro, MV 800 m/s, ICAO conditions),

that means the "hit" of this bullet, in our case 13.76, is full and always the same until approximately 1700 - 1800 meters.

 

I noticed some others weird values with 7,62x54 bullets.

 

Just curious and because some times i'm a little bit surprised with the Arma 3 terminal ballistic, how you manage exactly the typicalSpeed in your mod ?

 

Screenshot from a stable 1.98 Arma 3, GM only :

[major woody 11]

Hi There - I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but I would really like to know how to apply the new (ver. 1.2) Helmet Foliage to foot soldiers - tnx in advance 🙂

[Katoniusrex 0]

How does the AI Airport helper work?

[Ex3B 265]

So I went ahead and bought the DLC on sale, its like 1-2 beers at a bar, so why not.

I guess some things were done in the interest of "realism", but there are some things with the tanks that just end up being awkward.

* For the leopard variants with TI (TI isnpt realistic though is it?), its awkward that the normal key to change vision modes doesn't work, and instead using the zoom key will switch between vision modes (which have different zooms).

 

* Switching to the loader's hatch, and having to choose to take the mg3. I couldn't seem to switch directly from the inside of the tank the the loader's seat. It seems to me that a system like Arma 2's M1A2 TUSK would just be easier to deal with.

 

* Having to press reload after firing each shot, a bit annoying.

 

* FCS working for the main gun and not the coaxial MG... I understand that its realistic, but it also seems realistic that one could still use the rangefinder for the mainguns to get the range to a target that you'll engage with the machinegun.Its a bit annoying to switch to the main gun, get the range, switch back the the mg3, then set the range...

 

But nothing major...

 

Regarding the PT-7B: I thought arma's engine can't have amphibious tracked vehicles using physX, does this mean the PT-76B does not use physX?